Analysis of the deletions of DOIs: What factors undermine their persistence and to what extent?

International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries Pub Date : 2022-07-25 DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2207.12018

J. Kikkawa, Masao Takaku, F. Yoshikane

{"title":"Analysis of the deletions of DOIs: What factors undermine their persistence and to what extent?","authors":"J. Kikkawa, Masao Takaku, F. Yoshikane","doi":"10.48550/arXiv.2207.12018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":". Digital Object Identiﬁers (DOIs) are regarded as persistent; however, they are sometimes deleted. Deleted DOIs are an important issue not only for persistent access to scholarly content but also for bibliometrics, because they may cause problems in correctly identifying scholarly articles. However, little is known about how much of deleted DOIs and what causes them. We identiﬁed deleted DOIs by comparing the datasets of all Crossref DOIs on two diﬀerent dates, investigated the number of deleted DOIs in the scholarly content along with the corresponding document types, and analyzed the factors that cause deleted DOIs. Using the proposed method, 708,282 deleted DOIs were identiﬁed. The majority corresponded to individual scholarly articles such as journal articles, proceedings articles, and book chapters. There were cases of many DOIs assigned to the same content, e.g., retracted journal articles and abstracts of international conferences. We show the publishers and academic societies which are the most common in deleted DOIs. In addition, the top cases of single scholarly content with a large number of deleted DOIs were revealed. The ﬁndings of this study are useful for citation analysis and altmetrics, as well as for avoiding deleted DOIs.","PeriodicalId":213862,"journal":{"name":"International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries","volume":"241 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.12018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

. Digital Object Identiﬁers (DOIs) are regarded as persistent; however, they are sometimes deleted. Deleted DOIs are an important issue not only for persistent access to scholarly content but also for bibliometrics, because they may cause problems in correctly identifying scholarly articles. However, little is known about how much of deleted DOIs and what causes them. We identiﬁed deleted DOIs by comparing the datasets of all Crossref DOIs on two diﬀerent dates, investigated the number of deleted DOIs in the scholarly content along with the corresponding document types, and analyzed the factors that cause deleted DOIs. Using the proposed method, 708,282 deleted DOIs were identiﬁed. The majority corresponded to individual scholarly articles such as journal articles, proceedings articles, and book chapters. There were cases of many DOIs assigned to the same content, e.g., retracted journal articles and abstracts of international conferences. We show the publishers and academic societies which are the most common in deleted DOIs. In addition, the top cases of single scholarly content with a large number of deleted DOIs were revealed. The ﬁndings of this study are useful for citation analysis and altmetrics, as well as for avoiding deleted DOIs.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

doi缺失的分析:什么因素破坏了它们的持久性，在多大程度上?

．数字对象标识符(doi)被认为是持久的;然而，它们有时会被删除。删除的doi不仅对学术内容的持久访问是一个重要问题，而且对文献计量学也是一个重要问题，因为它们可能会导致正确识别学术文章的问题。然而，对于被删除的doi有多少以及它们的原因知之甚少。我们通过比较两个不同日期的所有Crossref doi数据集来确定被删除的doi，调查学术内容中被删除的doi数量以及相应的文档类型，并分析导致被删除的doi的因素。使用该方法，共识别出708,282个被删除的doi。大多数对应于个别学术文章，如期刊文章、会议论文和书籍章节。有些情况下，许多doi被分配到相同的内容，例如，撤稿的期刊文章和国际会议的摘要。我们展示了在被删除的doi中最常见的出版商和学术团体。此外，还揭示了单个学术内容中大量删除doi的顶级案例。本研究结果对引文分析和替代计量以及避免被删除的doi有一定的指导意义。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊最新文献

Robots Still Outnumber Humans in Web Archives, But Less Than Before Event Notifications in Value-Adding Networks "Knock knock! Who's there?" A study on scholarly repositories' availability Analysis of the deletions of DOIs: What factors undermine their persistence and to what extent? Whois? Deep Author Name Disambiguation using Bibliographic Data